PREREG_flat_exit: NOT accepted - APS 2806 -> 3125, CHA 3220 -> 2503 (the exit is earned: APS 6897 without it).
PREREG_flat_judge: NOT accepted (smoke) - APS 3009, CHA 2486: at the model's point f is small by construction, the judgment cannot tell flat from simple there.
PREREG_flat_analogy: ACCEPTED with G2. Entry = unkept promise AND the (xi, phi) configuration nearer to its own past than to the line AND the pair's similarity exponent m >= 2. Projection + G2: APS 2782 -> 2780 (below Chandrupatla 2787, per problem 95/20/38 p=8e-7), CHA 3169 -> 2625, guarantee holds. Without G2: APS 2806 -> 2807 (fails by one call), CHA 2635. Simple roots are spared exactly (cost unchanged); flat families 1823 -> 1238, entry comes late. Goal (below Chandrupatla on both) NOT met: CHA 2625 vs 2441, per problem 9/6/25.
Server regression x2: 1052 passed, 1 failed = the expected paper-number check.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Mechanism: the flat cycle is undershoot, undershoot, crossing, near-empty step. The single flag fires after the first undershoot and replaces the second - a useless step; the twice flag fires after the second and replaces the CROSSING, the one step of the cycle that collapses the bracket. The second undershoot's r is ~0.26, next to the 1/4 threshold, so the pair often does not even form. Again a detectability gain that did not carry to run cost. Next candidate (not pre-registered): the unkept promise AND a creep - the same step moving the same way as the previous one.
Removed a vacuous pin I had written (s2 <= max(s1, s2)). Regression on the branch: 935 pass twice; the only red test is the paper-number check.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
NOT accepted into the proposed rule by the stop rule: under the projection the flat families are already budget-bound (CHA 3220 -> 3198 only) while the false flags on APS cost 2806 -> 3029 (Z2 fails); with G2 both sets fail. The per-problem edge over Chandrupatla on APS turns into 26/72/55. Guarantee intact in every cell. Next candidate, not pre-registered: require the promise to fail twice in a row.
Regression on the branch: 918 pass (twice); the one red test is the paper-number check awaiting the paper update.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Impact, every sweep regenerated: the paper's key configurations are unchanged to the evaluation (proposed 2806/3220, credit 3568/3020, Chandrupatla, TOMS 748, Brent, bisection); 46 stated numbers move (ITP CHA 2857 -> 2896, ITP oracle 2611 -> 2647, record CHA figures by 14-18, the grid means by ~1%) and one finding weakens: the measured-order exponent of section 7.1 was cheaper in 29 of 60 far cells and 7 of 7 safeguards; with the fix 12 of 61 and 6 of 7, and on the wide-bracket set it now loses in every safeguard and drops 5 problems.
PREREG G1-G3 outcome on the fixed code: G2 (repeating step pattern, period from the data) PASSES Y1-Y4 and is ACCEPTED by the stop rule - proposed rule APS 2806 -> 2782 (below Chandrupatla's 2787), CHA 3220 -> 3169, both 6026 -> 5951, per problem vs Chandrupatla on APS 95/20/38 p = 8e-7. G1 fails Y1/Y2 (its Y3 miss was the sign bug), G3 fails Y2, A fails Y2. Regression 887 pass; the two red tests are the paper-number check (awaiting the paper update) and test_blend (fixed since, copy in stage16).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
X5: dissimilar+slope with A reaches 2859+2545 = 5404 over both sets, the best total this line has measured (was 5511; Chandrupatla 5228) - but again by trading the canonical set (2726 -> 2859) for the wide brackets (2785 -> 2545). The one-step replay (APS no harm) did not carry over: its bracket-halving metric rewards overshooting the root, which on a simple root costs superlinear convergence in the full run - the declared one-step limitation, now measured. Among the nine functions A helps only the tent (6026 -> 5892) and slightly ratio_soft.
Also: pin 'strictly fewer evaluations on every flat problem' was wrong for 6(x-2)^5 on [0,10] - both runs are budget-bound (90 of the guaranteed 91); corrected to the measured claim. verify_article 286/286, 836 tests pass twice.
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>
Not empty-handed: our own parameter-free reading 'defect' - refuse when |phi - xi| > min(xi, 1 - xi) - sets a new canonical best, APS 2523 at 153/154 (previous 2527, Chandrupatla 2785), guarantee intact (0 of 135 family cells), refusing on 7.0% of steps. It is a second point on the same trade, not a replacement: 5733 over both sets against 5511, because CHA gives back 3210. Also: _shape_ratios crashed on a missing third point, which evaluate would have turned into a silent sweep of zeros; the slope-gate pin was anchored on line spelling; and the server copy had drifted (stale relax/sor.py, test_relaxation.py absent - 746 tests instead of 755). All synced, 92/92 files identical by content, 755 pass on the server.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Also fixes a real regression from cc2c499: the derived3_cap branch was inserted in front of the derived3_m note and swallowed its division, so derived3_m silently became derived3 (2806 against 2806) and a refutation recorded in the paper stopped being reproducible. The full pin caught it; a cheap pin now guards it too. And \label{sec:method} never existed while the table on page 7 referenced it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
vvsandClaude Opus 5