-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
board: record merged PR #926 (arc entry + LATEST_STATE) #927
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,3 +1,20 @@ | ||
| ## 2026-08-12 — lance-graph #926 (MERGED) — the storm spine (90.9–94.3 %), the 12-byte L4 carrier, and five corrections that were each a claim fixed in ONE of its homes | ||
|
|
||
| - **Added.** `probes/weather-p1/COMET_TAIL_REPORT.md` (the canonical document: falsification ledger §4–§5.11, **§6.1** the L4 carrier, **§6.2** the three registers, §9 the spine/moderators reframe) + **10 probe scripts with committed JSON results**. EPIPHANIES: `E-THE-HEADLINE-NUMBER-MEASURED-A-MODEL-NOBODY-CLAIMED-1`, `E-SPINE-FOUND-MODERATORS-MISSING-1`, `E-THE-BYTE-WAS-ONLY-THE-SELECTOR-THE-PAIR-IS-THE-CARRIER-1`, `E-ZERO-FOR-ELEVEN-…` cross-refs. **9 919 insertions / 28 files: 47 % results-JSON, 36 % probe scripts, 17 % prose — zero Rust, zero library/product code, no test harness.** This PR changes no product surface; it is measurement apparatus and its output. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The #926 first-parent diff adds eleven script/JSON pairs, not ten: six Useful? React with 👍 / 👎. |
||
| - **Locked — the spine `[G]`.** A surface low compresses to **a center address + 14 logical fit values** (~12 ring-profile means + a 2-value wn-1 dipole) **= 90.9–94.3 % of in-disk MSLP variance**, replicated across **three independent blind samples, 1980–2021, 41+ storms, four seasons, never shaken**. Physical basis is textbook and stated up front (§2): a translating vortex in a steering flow, geostrophy making the geometry *signed*, and a linear background gradient being **pure wavenumber-1 with `a₁ ∝ r`** — three independent falsifiable predictions, all three probed. | ||
| - **Locked — the carrier `[H]`.** le-contract §3 row **L4 is a PAIR**: `6 × (8:8)`, `palette256²`, "similarity = ONE table read". A single palette byte is only the **selector**; the pair is a cell in the centroid tile. The spine fits: a **12-byte facet** (10 ring bytes spread over the radius with 2 interpolated + a 2-byte dipole rail) recovers the f64 spine to **0.07 Pa RMSE (0.03 %)** with a **+1.59 Pa bias**. **14 logical values ≠ 14 bytes** — model size and carrier budget are distinct and were conflated in three places before this landed. | ||
| - **Locked — the Fisher-z demarcation `[H]`.** Fisher-z centroid axes are **8.3× TIGHTER** than plain rank in the storm tail on the raw field (24.74 vs 204.54 Pa) and **4.7× WORSE** than uniform on the ring means (18.07 vs 3.84 Pa). Not a contradiction — **Fisher-z wins a RANK/TAIL read and loses an INTERPOLATE/LEVEL read**, which is exactly why le-contract says a ClassView **MAY** declare an analytic codebook. Corrects an over-generalization made earlier in the same session that Fisher-z is *the* L4 axis. A post-hoc rescue (rank against the field rather than the encoded values) was measured and **also failed** — recorded rather than dropped. | ||
| - **The directional claim is NOT established `[S]`.** CT-F14 — the single properly-powered, pre-registered, displacement-filtered test — returned **13/19 = 0.684, p = 0.0835 → NO-VERDICT** (one short of its own n ≥ 20 floor, and it would have failed the 0.70 bar regardless). The pooled 3-sample figure crosses p < 0.05 but is **gated, not promoted**: the pre-registration had no contingency for its largest component failing its own floor, and that gap is named rather than exploited. Trajectory across the arc: dead (F3) → alive ±3–7° (F4) → general → reversed → pooled-but-unsupported (F14). | ||
| - **⊘ Five corrections, and they are ONE failure mode.** Every genuine defect this PR's review surfaced was **a claim corrected in one of its homes and left standing in another**: (1) the **93–97 %** headline — a 36-parameter per-ring fit, not the 14-value model claimed — corrected in the block and left in the prose beneath it, in EPIPHANIES ×2, and in the **PR title/body**; (2) *"a null does not produce a ladder"* corrected in EPIPHANIES, left in the report §9 **and** in the PR body; (3) *"the statistically correct reading"* surviving in a **heading one line above its own correction**; (4) `CT_F12 pass:true` at n=3 and CT-F14's `ESTABLISHED` verdict — **code fixed, JSON artifact never regenerated**; (5) the values/bytes conflation in three documents. In each case the claim was **already known to be wrong** — what failed was propagation, not judgment. | ||
| - **⊘ R² used `var()` instead of the uncentered MSE at 11 sites (8 files).** `var(y−ŷ)` discards the squared *mean* residual, so any BIASED reconstruction is flattered. **Zero effect** wherever a ring-mean profile is present (`mean(resid)` = 1e-12 by construction) — so every f64 headline is unchanged and no other JSON needed regenerating — but it concealed a **+92.76 Pa systematic bias** in carve A (0.9212 → 0.9129). **The 12-byte facet had been called "lossless" on the strength of an R² agreeing to four decimals: in-disk variance is ~1e5 Pa², so R² is structurally near-blind to exactly the defect that matters for an ENCODER.** The probes now emit RMSE and mean bias in Pa beside every R². | ||
| - **⊘ Nine vacuous falsifiers across the arc**, the last three found by review: L4x passed **comparing a codebook array against ITSELF** (a uniform codebook is fixed by its population's min/max, and storm 1's range contains storm 2's) — and what MADE it vacuous was switching to the codebook the *previous bar had just named best*; E6's decay test accepted a **flat** tail; R5 quantified over 256 bytes while sampling 5, understating the worst spread **9×**. | ||
| - **Deferred / not claimed.** `domino.rs` does **not** implement the moderator model — its `W` is a *fixed* tridiagonal smoothing kernel (`domino.rs:113`), no learned weights, gates, hidden or cell state; the tile-GEMM **shape and substrate** exist, the model does not. θe / TCWV / precipitation / vertical velocity are **proxies**, not a closed entropy budget — that budget must be written before the CT-M1..M3 diabatic gate is used as a moderator. CT-F16 (score the dipole against **steering-level** motion, the one moderator this chain measured) NOT run. C-register calibration is single-timestep, not climatological — an operator call. | ||
| - **Docs.** `COMET_TAIL_REPORT.md` §1/§4/§5.1–5.11/§6.1/§6.2/§8b/§9; EPIPHANIES ×3 new + 2 regraded in place; PR title/body corrected post-merge-review. | ||
|
|
||
| **Correction (2026-08-12, same-day, caught by verifying this entry's own figures against the committed JSONs before landing it):** the Fisher-z ring-mean ratio is **4.7×**, not the *5×* first written here and in `COMET_TAIL_REPORT.md` §6.1 / `EPIPHANIES.md` — 18.07 / 3.84 = 4.71. A 6 % rounding in the FAVOURABLE direction, about to be frozen into an append-only record. Fixed in the two NEW board entries and in `COMET_TAIL_REPORT.md` §6.1 (not a board file). **`EPIPHANIES.md`'s merged entry is deliberately left reading *5×*** — it merged with #926, and the append-only rule freezes a merged entry except its Status/Confidence lines. **My first attempt edited that number in place, unmarked, which is history rewriting, not correction** — reverted the same commit. THIS entry is where the correction lives; a newest-first ledger is read from the top, so the frozen line is not a trap. That makes this PR mixed (hygiene + one correction) rather than hygiene-only, and the correction is recorded here rather than as a separate entry because it corrects #926's own content. **Nine of ten figures verified exactly; this was the tenth** — and it is the arc's signature defect one more time, committed by the person who spent the arc naming it. | ||
|
|
||
| **Confidence (2026-08-12):** merged. The **structural** claim is `[G]` — wn-1 dominance and the R² lift replicated across three independent samples and survived every apparatus gate, and the f64 headlines are unaffected by the `var()`→MSE fix. The **carrier fit** is `[H]`: 2 storms, 1 timestep, 1 variable — structural fit to the 12-byte facet, saying nothing about forecast skill. The **directional predictor is `[S]` and measured-unsupported at this power**, not merely pending. External review (CodeRabbit) found 8 real defects across 23 threads; the two most valuable were the `var()`/MSE numerator and the CT-F14 artifact contradicting its own report. Docstring-coverage reported 69.23 % for three runs while measuring 100 % five ways locally; it self-corrected to 100 % — **declining to manufacture docstrings for an unreproducible metric was the right call.** | ||
|
|
||
| ## 2026-08-11 — lance-graph #924 (MERGED) — the audit that failed 11 of 11 test specs, and the plan it made ACTIVE | ||
|
|
||
| - **Added.** `weather-substrate-evaluation-v1.md` **§8 audit record** + a full **§3 rewrite to v2 specs**; the plan header flips **DRAFT → ACTIVE**. Knowledge doc **§12.18**. EPIPHANIES `E-ZERO-FOR-ELEVEN-THE-AUTHOR-CANNOT-AUDIT-HIS-OWN-FALSIFIERS-1`. `AGENT_LOG` run entry. Board hygiene for #923. | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The committed measurements contradict the claim that a
+92.76 Paoffset moves R² only in the fifth decimal: for storm 1 carve A, replacingvar()with MSE changes R² from0.9212025to0.9128669, a roughly0.0083shift. The fifth-decimal-sized change (0.9434056to0.9434032) belongs to carve D's much smaller+1.59 Pabias. Conflating these examples materially understates how strongly R² detected the large bias in the methodological summary.Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.