S-ablation of A' (server): A' with each of the nine similarity functions in the step - tent 4443 on the paper protocol (13032 over 855 problems), the nearest other function e^-|z| 4988 (+12%; +9% over six corpora), quadratic ones 18410-18422 (+315%); ranking as the contraction law predicts; guarantee held with every S. The audit of section 7 rerun on the regenerated sweeps (APS unchanged: triple by shape -493 with the tent, +250 with 1/sqrt(1+z^2); defect -283 vs +215).
Text: abstract and section 3 no longer call the similarity scaffolding - the tent making the step Newton's is a property of the similarity chosen; a paragraph in section 7 on the audit; Table 9a; new 8.6 'What is known, and what is new' - Lagouanelle (the order estimate of 7.1 / 10.5), Rall and Hansen-Patrick (8.1), the log-log slope / COC / ACOC (8.2, formula 6), Schroeder and Traub (the split 7 = false position on sign(f)|f|^(1/m)), Brent's acceptance condition (half), Dekker/Brent (tolerance step); what we found no counterpart for is the decision layer by similarity and analogy and the step set by a similarity whose form is decisive. References 13-19. verify_article: Table 9a, the percentages and the audit numbers added; server 446 OK, 0 BAD; regression x2 1226 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
(2) The proposed method is again the scheduled projection (2806/3220/6026), its budget multiplier DECLARED as the one free constant: the canonical total is the same for every multiplier 1.25-4, the wide-bracket one is not. The earned projection is the constant-free variant (3568/3020/6588). What the old tables hid: problem by problem the proposed rule beats Chandrupatla on the canonical set 87/24/42, exact sign test p = 9e-5, while trailing him by 0.7% in total; on the wide-bracket set he is genuinely stronger (26 to 9, p = 0.006). Gap decomposition recomputed with the library: 244 (was 262), 160 of it on the flat families (two thirds), fun1 58 (a quarter, not a third as the abstract said).
Also corrected on the way: the 'subsumed by Chandrupatla' pin claimed he is better on the worst single problem - true only with the looser tolerance (84 against the credit rule's 83 once fixed); §8.3 still called zero slack degenerate, which Table 1a refutes; §5.2's Brent figure is our pure-Python implementation and now says so. verify_article.py 286/286, 802 tests pass twice.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Tables 2-3 regenerated from sweep_full.json by tables_for_md.py with the verifier's own ranking: Chandrupatla's method, missing from both, is FIRST on the canonical set (2785) and second on the wide-bracket set (2423); the proposed rule is 29th (3568) and 10th (3020); Brent 2889/4099 (was 2890/4101). The abstract, §5 text, §5.1, §5.2 (timed configuration named), §7 (records 2527/2523 are under the scheduled projection: 2523 flat for every multiplier 1.25-4, 2527 becomes 2541 at 1.25; under credit the readings give far less, best constant-free total 6494 by 'defect'), §8.4, §8.11 and the conclusion now say so: parity with the tuned methods at the price of one constant, or a constant-free rule with a tighter guarantee that trails on the canonical set. verify_article.py: 279 checks, measured tables recomputed from fresh runs; 762 tests pass twice.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Found on the way: negative item 'log change of variable' compared 3474 with 4516, the total of a DIFFERENT configuration; the honest pair is the same configuration in x, CHA 3643 -> 3474, APS 5822 -> 6940. Fixed in both texts. The gap-decomposition numbers were only traced to saved logs; they are now RECOMPUTED by verify_article.py from fresh runs of the diagnosis scripts (which return their values): 216 checks OK on Linux, 762 tests pass twice.
Open, for Valeri: the .md still says the projection's doubling is 'not a tuning constant', which simroot/pure.py (project_credit) refutes and which is why the .tex proposes credit; the .md's Tables 2-3 predate Chandrupatla's own method as a baseline (2785 APS, first place), so its 'parity' abstract is out of date; Brent 2890/4101 in the .md against 2889/4099 in the current sweep.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
vvsandClaude Opus 5