The results document was written as a reply to a briefing note that will not be
circulated, so it depended on a file no reader would have -- and linked to one
that was never committed, so the link was dead on GitHub regardless.
Rewritten to be self-contained: it now states what the added spec section
claims, what was measured, and the verdict, without reference to the brief.
The six claims and six experiments are stated in its own terms rather than by
the brief's C-numbers and E-numbers, and it carries its own reproduction table
mapping each section to the config or script and run directory behind it.
Renamed fork-loss-validation.md accordingly.
The configs and scripts written for these experiments carried the same
dependency in their header comments ("Handoff E5", "Claim C2"); those now
describe what they measure directly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Settles E1-E4 and E6 of handoff-fork-loss-validation.md against spec d6fd7648.
E1 costs nothing and reframes everything: analysis-block-times-blend-network.md
sets blending_delay as a FIXED per-hop dwell (the 3d+5 max-delay arithmetic
gives 14 s at d=3 and 11 s at d=2, matching its prose), not a mean or a bound.
The simulator's Uniform(0, delta_max) matches a 2 s dwell in the mean at
delta_max = 4, so D_vis = 8 s and rho = 0.27 -- inside the committed 40-replicate
paired design band, which answers C1-C3 from data of record.
C1 refuted: every U>=1 cell sits at 0.9985-0.9997, not 0.986. C2's mechanism is
right but its size is ~17x over: the paired first-fork cost is 0.08 pp pooled
(95% CI [0.03, 0.13], t = 3.08), resolved only because the arms share streams --
the U=0 negative control is exactly 0.00000 +- 0.00000. C3 is refuted in the
UNFAVOURABLE direction: the no-uncle loss is 33% at N=1000 and 34.6% at N=5000
(42% / 49.5% at delta_max = 8), so the section understates what uncles buy by
about half. C4 stands with ~7x margin (U=3 still recovers at rho = 1.87). C5 is
right in effect, wrong in wording -- the knee is at W_abs ~ 5, so the spec's 10
is ~2x above it, which is "has margin", not "never binds".
C6 is the section's real omission. The deployed estimator quantises the target
rate at PRECISION = 1e3, and measured in the full dynamics that reads
1.01026 +- 0.00056 against a closed form of 1.0101 -- a 1.0% bias ~13x the
first-fork cost the section is concerned with, opposite in sign, removed by a
one-constant change. It could not be measured before because PRECISION was a
module constant pinned at the RECOMMENDED 1e6; f_precision is now a config
field, appended to the RNG key only when non-default so no committed run moves.
Also from the guide: uncle_window_slots now floors rather than rounds, matching
w_u := floor(W/f) (identical at the defaults; matters only for the W and f
sweeps).
Reviewed sec 4.3's argument as sec 6 asks, and it holds -- inclusion stayed soft
("may reference fewer uncles than it could ... and its block remains valid"), so
row 10, the anti-mandate argument and the suppress adversary are all unaffected;
only the CONTENT of a reference became validity-gated. One correction: the
"no incentive to deviate" clause does still exist, so sec 8.5's implication (ii)
is live, not moot.
E5 -- the jitter diagnostic, and the only experiment that could invalidate the
report rather than the section -- is not run and is flagged as such.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
