vvsandClaude Opus 5 667f243f54 Article proof-reading: the introduction no longer says the four new corpora were unseen (three were used to close the last two gaps; only the fourth was run once after the code was frozen); a repeated clause in 8.2 merged. verify_article also recomputes every sign-test p printed in Section 9. Server: 411 OK, 0 BAD; regression x2 1226 passed, 0 failed. ...

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-09-21 21:03:15 +01:00

..

new_sections_8_9.md

Article (canonical .md), step 1: 42 stale numbers brought to the regenerated server sweeps (Tables 3-7, 5.3, 7.1-7.4, section 10), statements that no longer hold rephrased ((2)+(3) not worse than either alone on the wide-bracket set; the best constant-free configuration is no longer defect); the rule of section 3 renamed the base rule; new Section 8 (the flat regime recognised by analogy: the flag, the analogy with its own past, the translation limit, the split from the order, five more readings, the proposed method A', Tables 8-9) and Section 9 (out-of-sample evidence on four more corpora, Tables 10-11); negative results and conclusion renumbered 10-11. Abstract, introduction, conclusion and verify_article still to update.

2026-09-21 20:44:31 +01:00

sim_numerics.md

Article proof-reading: the introduction no longer says the four new corpora were unseen (three were used to close the last two gaps; only the fourth was run once after the code was frozen); a repeated clause in 8.2 merged. verify_article also recomputes every sign-test p printed in Section 9. Server: 411 OK, 0 BAD; regression x2 1226 passed, 0 failed.

2026-09-21 21:03:15 +01:00

sim_numerics.pdf

Slot 2, the decision place: Chandrupatla's own acceptance band, put inside our step rule as an instrument, does NOT close the gap - CHA 3066 (project) / 2899 (credit) against his 2423, while APS doubles 2806 -> 5432, and the band is not idle (63.6% refusals). The fifth independent test of one conclusion: the remaining gap is the ORDER of the model the step is built on, not the place the similarity is read in. By the declared stop rule (M1 and M2 both false) the 'where is the similarity read' line is closed: all four places measured.

2026-09-21 06:58:59 +01:00

sim_numerics.tex

The new sections move into the canonical text, article/sim_numerics.md (Valeri's decision): section 7 'Where the similarity is read' with 7.1 per-place similarity, 7.2 the decision place, 7.3 the fun7 scoring artefact, 7.4 the gap decomposition; negative results 8-11 appended so items 1-7 keep their numbers; abstract paragraph; Future work rewritten (the refuted log transform removed); item 6 now says aps.13.00 is a scoring artefact, not a method failure. Translated into the .md's revised names: code 'ratio' = the tent max(0,1-|z|), code 'rational' = the ratio similarity 1/(1+|z|); the proposed method stays the .md's (tent, 3-point, projection).

2026-09-21 07:48:55 +01:00