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>
7 lines
446 B
Plaintext
7 lines
446 B
Plaintext
configuration 1.25 1.50 2.00 3.00 4.00
|
|
shape reading (2527) 2541/2878 2527/3005 2527/3108 2527/3108 2527/3108
|
|
defect reading (2523) 2523/2727 2523/2853 2523/3210 2523/3813 2523/4100
|
|
far end by dissimilarity (5511) 2726/2684 2726/2770 2726/2785 2726/2785 2726/2785
|
|
|
|
cells are APS/CHA totals
|