Vuong Hoang
e8eb1594d9
1,200 generations across five arms. ckpt300 (epoch 0.652) is the best arm in the
run on every axis that resolves:
VOICE +0.177 at 3.2x its pairwise floor (primary), +0.128 at 2.8x with
every punctuation mark stripped. Best point estimate AND best
margin of any arm, spread 0.055/0.038 with no outlier seed.
MEMORISATION 0.12 against real unseen McCarthy's own 0.12 -- identical -- with
a longest match of 10 words against the author's coincidental 12.
All 31 matches read: stock grammar, names are the renamed
inventions, nothing protectable.
DAMAGE ran-on +0.12. Clears the operator's ratified v2 floor of 0.200 by
40%. FAILS AMENDMENT 3's self-imposed 0.100 bar by 0.02.
NOT SHIPPED, and the reason is the bar rather than the adapter. AMENDMENT 3 fixed
ran-on <= 0.100 before either new arm existed, precisely so a marginal number could
not be talked into a ship, and shipping at 0.12 would make that pre-registration
theatre. But the bar's stated rationale was written against ckpt450's pass by 0.01
-- 5% of the threshold -- and ckpt300 clears by 40%. The number excludes a candidate
the reasoning does not. That is an operator call.
ckpt325/350/375 are on disk and one may sit under 0.100. They were deliberately NOT
gated: searching the checkpoint space until something clears is candidate-shopping,
the same family as threshold-shopping approached from the other side.
THREE CLAIMS FROM EARLIER THIS SESSION ARE REFUTED and are corrected in the record:
1. "The damage is flat across epochs and only rotates direction" -- FALSE. ran-on
is non-monotonic (0.38 -> 0.13 -> 0.20 -> 0.28 across epochs 0.49/0.65/0.98/
1.96) with a real minimum near 0.65, and ckpt225 is 48% out-of-band against
ckpt300's 35%.
2. "ckpt300 runs far too short, ckpt225 will clear ran-on by being short" -- FALSE
on both. ckpt225 runs LONG (median 127, 38% over-band) and is the worst arm in
the run. I generalised from SIX generations of one arm, which is the exact n=1
violation the measurement-discipline rule names, committed in the same breath
as a note about being careful.
3. The original "gate an earlier checkpoint, the overshoot may not have arrived
yet" recommendation was RIGHT. Retracting it an hour later on a three-arm read
was the error, not the recommendation.
What is true and unresolved by any checkpoint choice: 35% of ckpt300's generations
miss the 90-140 band against base's 11%, and in-band is 0.65 against 0.89. An
adapter that buys a voice and costs a third of the length compliance is a trade, not
a defect -- but it is the operator's trade to accept.
Raw artifacts for all five arms at scripts/mccarthy-corpus/gate-results/.
18 lines
870 B
Plaintext
18 lines
870 B
Plaintext
measurement surface: raw
|
|
arm n in-band on-beat cover ran-on words
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
base 240 0.89 0.71 0.63 0.01 110
|
|
ckpt900 240 0.67 0.42 0.44 0.28 114
|
|
ckpt450 240 0.67 0.45 0.44 0.20 108
|
|
ckpt300 240 0.65 0.42 0.43 0.13 102
|
|
ckpt225 240 0.52 0.43 0.45 0.38 126
|
|
|
|
noise floor (max within-arm spread across seeds): 0.200
|
|
⚠ any between-arm gap at or under that is NOT a finding
|
|
|
|
1. in-band 0.52 vs 0.89 delta -0.37 FAIL (needs > +0.200)
|
|
2. on-beat 0.43 vs 0.71 delta -0.29 FAIL (needs >= -0.200)
|
|
3. ran-on 0.38 vs 0.01 delta +0.37 FAIL (needs <= +0.200)
|
|
|
|
VERDICT: DO-NOT-SCALE
|