Commit Graph
3 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
vvsandClaude Opus 5 5a1edffcfc PREREG_flat_creep outcome: NOT accepted. Unkept promise AND creep under the projection: APS 2806 -> 2878 (V2 fails), CHA 3220 -> 3354 (V1 fails), flat fun3-6 1823 -> 1991 (V4 fails), guarantee holds (V3). With G2: 2782 -> 2842, 3169 -> 3318. Under safe CHA 3390 -> 3149, weaker than the single flag (3037). None of the three flat-regime gates pays under the projection: its budget already does their work. Server regression x2: 952 passed, 1 failed = the expected paper-number check (46 numbers after the signfix, pending the paper decision).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-09-21 13:55:37 +01:00
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
vvsandClaude Opus 5 e7e74d71e5 Flat regime (PREREG_flat_regime): the unkept-promise flag - after a model step that did not cross the root, r = f_new/f_old >= 1/4, the tangent-versus-halving break-even at m = 2 - RECOGNISES the regime (stage 1: 53.6% of model steps flagged on the flat families against 21.6% on APS and 17.0% on fun1; recall ten times the m>=2 estimator's 5.8%) and cuts the wide-bracket set by 350-490 wherever the budget does not already bind: safe 3390 -> 3037, step 3524 -> 3037, unguarded 4104 -> 3198.
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>
2026-09-21 13:25:56 +01:00