mirror of
https://github.com/logos-blockchain/research.git
synced 2026-08-08 20:23:28 +00:00
e5a89004f2
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>