Article proof-reading: the introduction no longer says the four new corpora were unseen (three were used to close the last two gaps; only the fourth was run once after the code was frozen); a repeated clause in 8.2 merged. verify_article also recomputes every sign-test p printed in Section 9. Server: 411 OK, 0 BAD; regression x2 1226 passed, 0 failed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

article/sim_numerics.md

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ This paper asks a different question. Suppose the only thing available is a *sim
 
 The answer is sharp in both directions, and the negative half is as informative as the positive half.
 
-The paper proceeds in two stages. Sections 2–7 derive a base rule from the similarity alone, measure it, and locate what it lacks: not a better model but a decision, when to stop trusting the model it has. Section 8 supplies that decision with a similarity of the run to its own past, and Section 9 tests the resulting method on four corpora it was not developed on, one of them fixed after the method's code was frozen.
+The paper proceeds in two stages. Sections 2–7 derive a base rule from the similarity alone, measure it, and locate what it lacks: not a better model but a decision, when to stop trusting the model it has. Section 8 supplies that decision with a similarity of the run to its own past, and Section 9 tests it on four further corpora: three of them exposed two last gaps of the base step and were used to close them, and the fourth was fixed after the method's code was frozen and run once.
 
 ---
 
@@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ Nearness of configurations is one relation. An analogy in the full sense needs a
 
 $$m=\frac{\ln L_f}{\ln L_x}.\tag{6}$$
 
-Under an exact zoom a pure power of order $m$ reads exactly $m$; along a real run the analogous pairs are only nearly homothetic and the reading scatters about the order, but the regime asks only whether it reaches 2. The regime is the one where a tangent step loses, $m\ge2$ (§8.1) — no new constant. On the traces of the base rule, at the moments the flag rises, the three conditions together hold on 3 of the 154 canonical problems, on all 20 flat problems, and on none of `fun2`, `fun8`, `fun9`.
+Under an exact zoom a pure power of order $m$ reads exactly $m$; along a real run the analogous pairs are only nearly homothetic and the reading scatters about the order, but the regime asks only whether it reaches 2, the order from which a tangent step loses to a halving (§8.1) — no new constant. On the traces of the base rule, at the moments the flag rises, the three conditions together hold on 3 of the 154 canonical problems, on all 20 flat problems, and on none of `fun2`, `fun8`, `fun9`.
 
 **The analogy belongs to the run, the flag to the moment.** In the cycle the base rule runs on a pure power — undershoot, undershoot, crossing, a nearly empty step — the flag rises in the phases whose configuration does *not* recur (the empty step grows emptier every cycle), while the recurring phases have the flag down. Requiring both in one state delayed the entry on the flat problems to their thirteenth state on average. Once established, the analogy is therefore remembered for the run, and the regime is entered at the next unkept promise (eighth state on average).