2 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Marcin Pawlowski
ef82ed614d
Review pass: reproduce every number from its data of record, fix what did not
Correctness/completeness review of the report and simulator. Verified against
the committed parquets: the sec 6.6 countable-ceiling table (cap-64 MDP sweep),
sec 6.10 Result 4's depth ceilings, the sec 3.4 uncle-selection table, all
adversary-variant numbers, the rho-boundary row-4 quotes (0.976 at rho=0.91,
4-sigma shortfall at 0.96, max cell 1.0024), and the sec 8.4 capstone table.
Three defects found, all fixed:

1. The collapse event was not reproducible from the committed script. Study D
   swept only the default (random) coalition, but the one observed collapse is
   a whale cell; the "once in 144 runs" count came from an ad-hoc probe. The
   committed sweep now carries the selection axis (96 runs) and reproduces the
   event: 1/12 in the whale 50% cell at delta_max = 8, never at 4. All six
   fold-related passages now quote the committed sweep, which also retires the
   stale "the full dynamics never reach it" wording in the sec 6 arc, the
   sec 6.2 intro, row 6 and item 1 -- text that contradicted item 18 since
   yesterday's finding.

2. capstone.py's printout could not reproduce the report's sec 8.4 table. The
   report's numbers are a per-replicate-tail aggregation (each replicate burns
   in against its own early-stop length); the script cut the tail at the ARM's
   max epoch, silently dropping any replicate that stopped earlier (7 of 8 in
   the adversary arm) and landing one rounding step off on three cells. The
   script now aggregates per replicate and prints the SEM; against the existing
   parquet it reproduces the table exactly (1.001/0.998, 0.342+-0.009 /
   0.343+-0.005, p_ref 1.000/0.990, 8 reps both arms). The report table was
   right all along; sec 6.8's p_ref quote (0.989, the per-arm value) is aligned
   to 0.990.

3. Small report fixes: slow-beta deflation rounded 0.765 -> "0.77" (now 0.76);
   fig13's caption now points at the fig36 ceiling instead of implying free
   recovery; row 5 cites the measured slow-beta standing deflation; the
   canonical-data paragraph lists the new studies' artifacts; the simulator
   README's layout block lists the new tests and scripts.

Adds a unit test for reorg.countable_recovery_from_depths (the one new
function that had none). 236 tests pass; the new-study parquets are copied to
the main checkout's runs/, where every other study's data of record lives.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 12:29:13 +02:00
Marcin Pawlowski
feafe8ec92
Close the sec 6.5 scope variants; static withholding can reach the fold
Whale coalitions, jitter > 0 and very slow beta were the residual "untested
adversary variants" of open item 11. None moves a conclusion:

- Concentration does not change the deflation (suppression D-hat within noise
  at every stake), and a whale coalition reproduces the sec 6.4 withholding law
  D-hat -> (1-beta_adv) more cleanly than a random one: 0.9005/0.6997/0.5010
  against a predicted 0.9/0.7/0.5. The "lumpier share statistic" worry points
  the other way, and for a reason that is about coalition CONSTRUCTION rather
  than concentration: a random coalition grows until its stake first reaches
  the target, so the last node added overshoots by its own size -- a whale,
  under a Pareto tail. Realised block share at a nominal beta_adv = 0.1 is
  0.137 +- 0.108. Logged as item 17: the beta_adv axis is a nominal target.
- jitter up to 1 slot changes nothing under attack (notch 0.390 -> 0.410,
  attacker share flat, range_ratio identically 0), as sec 6.1 found honestly.
- Slow beta shrinks the notch (0.415 -> 0.080 for beta 1 -> 0.1) at flat
  attacker take, but sinks the MEAN estimate to 0.765 at beta = 0.05: the
  estimator can no longer track back up during the honest half of the cycle.
  Slowing beta buys the defender nothing on either axis.

Unplanned: study A blew past the memory guard, which turned out to be the
sec 6.2 fold being reached. The mechanism is sec 6.2's own -- rho_eff = rho/r,
and withholding deflates r by design, so a 50 % coalition doubles the load onto
rho_eff ~ 1.1 at the design point. Swept directly, the estimate collapses once
in 144 runs at delta_max = 8 (a concentrated 50 % coalition) and never at
delta_max = 4. That retires "not an observed dynamical trap" but is one event,
so the claim is stated as a rare tail and the rate is logged unmeasured as
item 18.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-05 16:53:56 +02:00