mirror of
https://github.com/logos-blockchain/research.git
synced 2026-08-08 20:23:28 +00:00
a82e4cb706
The last and most consequential handoff experiment -- the only one that could have invalidated the report rather than the spec section. It does not, but the result is more useful than a refutation: it identifies the assumption the section's number encodes. Sweeping per-(block,node) jitter interpolates between the two transport models, since jitter is precisely what the standalone simulation had and the Blend cascade does not. At the deployment's operating point, D-hat/D at U=1 runs 0.9983 / 0.9992 / 0.9991 / 0.9971 / 0.9871 for jitter 0/1/2/4/8 slots, with the share of orphans below their fork's first block rising 0.25% -> 3.30%. So BOTH branches of the handoff's pass/fail are true at different levels: flat to ~2 slots, and at 8 slots it lands on 0.9871 -- essentially the section's 0.986. That turns the disagreement into a checkable question. The cascade's variance is per BLOCK (every recipient moved together by the final flood, harmless to the estimate); jitter is per RECIPIENT (divergent, and the only kind that makes forks deeper than one block, which the counting rule cannot recover). Blend delivers ~0.5 slot of per-recipient spread over a degree-6 graph, so the design sits an order of magnitude inside the flat region and 8 slots is ~16x what the transport produces. The section charged per-recipient variance where Blend delivers per-block; that distinction is the whole disagreement. Consensus is untouched at every level (range_ratio = 0 and agreement = 1.000 in all 480 runs), reconfirming sec 6.1 at the deployment's own point. Partly closes open item 15: the report now carries a measured bound on per-recipient variance instead of assuming the transport. Spatially CORRELATED latency is still untested -- jitter is i.i.d. per (block, node), so it cannot model a region straggling as a bloc, and item 15 is narrowed to that. Also lands the sec 4.1 item 2 relabel from the handoff guide: the unrestricted arm is an unreachable CEILING, not a candidate design, because the spec now rejects a block carrying an entry that fails the counting rules. Sec 2.1 and the header note say so explicitly rather than calling it "the comparison baseline". Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>