sim-numerics

66 Commits 1 Branch 0 Tags

1 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
vvsandClaude Opus 5	9884b21204	PREREG_flat_twice outcome: stage 1 passed (twice-in-a-row fires on 27.8% of model steps on the flat families, 8.7% on APS, 4.3% on fun1; flat/APS ratio 3.20 against the single flag's 2.47), stage 2 FAILED: under the projection APS 2806 -> 2803 (W2 holds, the per-problem edge over Chandrupatla kept at 83/28/42) but CHA 3220 -> 3341 and the flat families 1823 -> 1975 (W1, W4 fail); with G2 the same. Under safe/step the twice gate is inert (3390 -> 3388) where the single one gave 3037. 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>	2026-09-21 13:45:20 +01:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

vvsandClaude Opus 5

9884b21204

PREREG_flat_twice outcome: stage 1 passed (twice-in-a-row fires on 27.8% of model steps on the flat families, 8.7% on APS, 4.3% on fun1; flat/APS ratio 3.20 against the single flag's 2.47), stage 2 FAILED: under the projection APS 2806 -> 2803 (W2 holds, the per-problem edge over Chandrupatla kept at 83/28/42) but CHA 3220 -> 3341 and the flat families 1823 -> 1975 (W1, W4 fail); with G2 the same. Under safe/step the twice gate is inert (3390 -> 3388) where the single one gave 3037.

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>

2026-09-21 13:45:20 +01:00